In addition, some questions were added to gather general information of the Emem speech community that can be used to help set strategy for how the language development needs of these
people might be met. These questions are the following: What is the population of the Emem-speaking villages, and what is the main livelihood for them?
What is the situation of infrastructure, education, health, and religion? What is the current situation of community and language development?
Data from these additional questions have already been reported in section 2 above.
5 Methodology
In the following sections, survey techniques and implementation are discussed.
5.1 Survey techniques
In order to arrive at answers to the research questions mentioned above, a variety of techniques were chosen.
1 The existing language boundaries and dialect situation were assessed through the following:
Apparent lexical similarity comparisons between the speech varieties used in the Emem-speaking villages and with villages of the neighboring languages;
Interviews with community members regarding perceived degrees of similarity and intelligibility between the surveyed Emem villages as well as the perceived degrees of similarity and
intelligibility between Emem and the surrounding languages; Interviews with community members of the surrounding languages regarding the perceived degrees
of similarity and intelligibility between their language and Emem. 2
Language vitality was investigated through the following: Reported language use in various domains, both public and private;
Reported language use of the younger generation for intergenerational shift; Reported indicators of language maintenance.
3 Language attitudes were examined in the following ways:
Reported attitudes toward the oral modality; Reported attitudes toward the written modality of Emem, such as attitudes toward potential
development of the language. For the additional questions listed above in section 5, reported data and observation were used to
gather updated general background information on the Emem-speaking area.
5.2 Implementation
In the following sections, various aspects regarding the implementation of the survey are discussed: survey stages, procedures, locations, and survey subjects.
5.2.1 Survey stages
This rapid appraisal survey was conducted for ten days, May 23–June 1, 2005, by a team of four people: Myung Young Lee SIL, Theresia Wambaliau SIL staff, Agustina Sawi SIL staff and Leo Pikindu
Papuan guide. They visited six villages: Yuruf, Umuaf, Yambraf Satu, Yambraf Dua, and Semografi in Web Subdistrict, as well as Tofanma Satu in Senggi Subdistrict.
Background research took place for about four weeks before the survey trip was conducted. The team interviewed people who were from the area to be surveyed and who are now living or studying in
Sentani. Also the team researched Internet web sites and the Ethnologue Gordon 2005 to gather any information related to the villages. Interviewees reported the existence of airstrips in Yuruf, Ubrub, and
Terpones.
Regarding transportation, the team decided to fly from Sentani to Yuruf, and then on to Ubrub. Since there are no roads to reach Umuaf, Yambraf Satu, Yambraf Dua, and Semografi, the team hiked to
those villages.
5.2.2 Survey procedures
Prior to embarking on a survey trip, the survey team informs the villages to be surveyed through letters or single side band SSB radio messages about two weeks before leaving for the area. Sometimes,
however, the villages do not get the information before the survey team’s arrival, which unfortunately was the case for Yambraf and Semografi. When the survey team arrived in Yambraf Satu and Yambraf
Dua, the villages were almost empty, and those who were there knew nothing about the team’s intended visit. Fortunately, the team met the mayor of Semografi in Ubrub, so they could inform him in advance
of their plan to visit Semografi.
Upon arrival in each survey location, the survey team met the mayor of the village to introduce themselves and to explain the purpose of the visit. He was then asked to gather the people of the village
to a public meeting place so the team could publicly introduce themselves and explain the purpose of the visit as well as the work of SIL in general. After finishing these introductions, the villagers and survey
team members were divided up into groups to begin gathering data.
5.2.2.1 Wordlist elicitation
This section describes the rationale behind the elicitation of wordlists, the elicitation procedures, as well as the method used for the analysis of the elicited lists.
5.2.2.1.1 Rationale
Wordlists were elicited in order to determine, based on shared lexical items, the degree of apparent linguistic similarity among the Emem-speaking villages, as well as the degree of apparent linguistic
similarity between Emem and the surrounding languages. Wordlists also aid in assessing the need for and establishing priorities for Phase II of the study of the languages of Papua: testing the comprehension
among Emem speech communities.
5.2.2.1.2 Design
The survey team used a 239-item wordlist for gathering lists from the Emem-speaking villages, as well as from the villages of the surrounding language groups. This wordlist was adapted and expanded from the
UNCEN
20
-SIL 1985 list, which was last revised by SIL Indonesia in May 2002. The items in the list are written in English and Indonesian, but Indonesian is used for the language of elicitation. See Appendix B
for the full wordlist that was used as well as all the Emem lists that were elicited. In addition, the wordlist includes twenty diagnostic sentences for gathering some information related to grammar for
others who may be interested in such analysis. See Appendix C for the complete sentence list as well as the sentences elicited from the Emem language.
5.2.2.1.3 Procedures
On this survey, the team gathered four wordlists from Emem-speaking villages, as well as from villages from the surrounding languages. Usually two native speakers are selected for wordlist elicitation. These
speakers are screened to ensure they were born and raised in that village. They need to be fluent in both the vernacular language and the national language since Indonesian is used for the language of
elicitation. Elicitation is done in a quiet place by one of the survey team members. The vernacular
20
UNCEN stands for Universitas Cenderawasih Cenderawasih University in Papua, Indonesia.
language words given are written using the International Phonetic Alphabet IPA on the wordlist sheets, and an audio recording is made using a mini disk recorder. One of the speakers supplies the word in the
vernacular for each item from the wordlist, and the other confirms the accuracy of the words given. The process of elicitation and recording usually takes about two hours. Occasionally, the reliability of the
written and audio recordings are compromised by the lighting situation or inclement weather. Both of these conditions were present in the village of Semografi.
5.2.2.1.4 Analysis
The elicited wordlists were entered in the computer program WordSurv version 2b.5d-Wimbish 1989. The program performs a count of shared vocabulary between lists based on similarity groupings, as
determined by the researcher, rather than applying the Comparative Method to the data. It does not determine cognates based on historical analysis.
Similarity groupings for shared vocabulary were established according to the criteria outlined by Blair 1990. See Appendix C for a further description on Blair’s three categories used for grouping the
shared vocabulary. Based on these groupings, WordSurv performed a count of shared vocabulary between pairs of languages. These counts were presented in computed percentage matrices of apparent
lexical similarity.
In order to interpret the apparent lexical similarity results, the Papua survey team follows the following guidelines outlined by SIL Indonesia:
If apparent lexical similarity between two wordlists is 60 percent or less, they can usually safely be interpreted to represent separate languages. For percentages above 60, lexicostatistic data alone are
not adequate to determine whether or not the speech varieties are the same language. Lexical similarity results are always best interpreted alongside other lines of evidence. Additional
sociolinguistic information gathered during the survey is to be used alongside the lexicostatistical data to help determine whether or not the speech varieties are the same language. This sociolinguistic
information includes data on reported intelligibility, ethnolinguistic identity, and attitudes toward the other speech variety.
There may be occasions when intelligibility testing is needed to make decisions about whether or not the speech varieties are the same language such as when lexicostatistical and sociolinguistic data do
not clearly indicate whether or not the speech varieties are the same language or to confirm impressions that arise from rapid-appraisal survey.
Regarding this second guideline recommending sociolinguistic investigation to augment the lexicostatistical data, the survey team has gathered data about the reported similarity and intelligibility
among speech varieties, which are reported in section 6.1.2 below. 5.2.2.2
Formal interviews 5.2.2.2.1
Rationale Formal interviews including standardized questionnaires were conducted with members of the local
communities being surveyed. The purpose of these questionnaires was to gather sociolinguistic information about the Emem language focusing on language use, language attitudes, and language
vitality. They also examined the perceptions of the people as to the degrees of similarity and intelligibility both among the Emem-speaking villages and with villages of the surrounding languages.
These formal interviews were also used to gather general, further updated background information about the Emem-speaking community, such as demographics, religion, education, and economy.
5.2.2.2.2 Questionnaire design
All the questionnaires used for conducting formal interviews were designed by the SIL Papua survey team in 2000 and were revised in January 2005. The language used for asking the questions is
Indonesian. The questionnaire forms are designed with space to record their answers directly on the forms.
The community leader questionnaire is designed for use with the community leaders to gather relevant background information about the villages surveyed. The questions are related to demographics,
economy, religion, and health conditions of the community. See Appendix D for an English translation of the community leader questionnaire used to gather data from the Emem-speaking community.
The community group questionnaire is designed for use with a mixed group of villagers to gather information more related to language, such as language use, language change, language vitality,
dialectology, and language attitudes. See Appendix E for an English translation of the community group questionnaire.
The school questionnaire is designed for use with a headmaster or teacher at the village school to gather information related to education and language use at school. See Appendix F for an English
translation of the school questionnaire. 5.2.2.2.3
Procedures In each village surveyed, separate formal interviews are normally conducted using standardized
questionnaires with a community leader of the village, with a group of community members, and with the school headmaster.
The community leader questionnaire is normally administered to the local mayor kepala kampung or kepala desa by one of the researchers. If the mayor is not available, the interview is conducted with
his secretary or another of his official representatives. Alternatively, the questionnaire may be administered to the traditional leader kepala suku or kepala adat.
21
The interview follows the outline in the questionnaire and is conducted in Indonesian.
The community group questionnaire is administered to a group of community members who are available at the time of the interview. Preferably, the questionnaire is administered to groups of adult
men and women of a variety of ages who are native speakers of the target language and are willing to answer some questions regarding their language. The interview is conducted by one researcher who asks
the questions and records the answers. The interview is conducted in Indonesian, although questions may be rephrased in Papuan Malay if it is apparent to the researcher that the group is confused.
Although the interviewer tries to include as many villagers as possible in the discussions, the conversation is typically dominated by only a few people. Usually, the interview takes about one and a
half hours to complete.
The school questionnaire is administered to the local school headmaster kepala sekolah by one of the survey members. If the headmaster is not available, the interview is conducted with one of the
teachers. If none are available at the time of the interview, or if the village does not have a school, the interview is not conducted. The interview follows the outline in the questionnaire and is conducted in
standard Indonesian.
5.2.2.2.4 Analysis
As a first step in the analysis process, the elicited data are compiled into tables to reveal the responses across survey locations according to the underlying research topics. As a second step, the findings of
these comparisons were written up with special attention given to any emerging patterns. The data pertaining to reported similarity and intelligibility were compared to the results from the
wordlist analysis. This comparison reveals any correlations or discrepancies between what was perceived by the community and lexical similarity of the speech varieties surveyed as well as neighboring speech
varieties.
21
In some areas of the province, the traditional leader “outranks” the mayor, even relating to governmental issues.
5.2.2.3 Informal interviews and observation
5.2.2.3.1 Rationale
Informal interviews with local community members and observation in the village communities were carried out to gather further information regarding the overall situation of the language area. This
information would address perceived language boundaries and dialect situation, as well as language use patterns and attitudes. Since the informal interviews and observations are carried out in a more
comfortable atmosphere with the villagers, it is hoped they are more open to sharing some information this way.
5.2.2.3.2 Procedures
During the survey, informal interviews were carried out with local community members whenever opportunities presented themselves, especially before the commencement or after the closure of the
formal interviews. These observations were focused on the overall living conditions of the target populations, including the economic, health and education situations as well as the local infrastructure.
In addition, observations were noted regarding language use patterns among the local community members. The information gathered from the informal interviews and observations was then recorded in
personal notebooks.
5.2.2.3.3 Analysis
After returning from the survey trip, the notes from all survey team members are organized and summarized in writing and then discussed by the team members. These notes are compared to the
information obtained during the administration of the questionnaires, and any relevant information not included in the questionnaire data is incorporated into the current report. Any discrepancies are also
noted in the written report.
5.2.3 Survey locations
